3 ms·
>there’s no x10 improvement in anything interesting Don't you think trusting code to transmit and trade assets is a x10 improvement over trusting people? I'd r
by davidajackson 7y ago
>there’s no x10 improvement in anything interesting
Don't you think trusting code to transmit and trade assets is a x10 improvement over trusting people? I'd rather trust code I can audit than people.
Even if you don't call it an x10, I would definitely call it a success.
- friendlybus 7y agoYou can't choose between tech and people. You have to trust both.
- davidajackson 7y agoNot with crypto. It's trustless. That statement is a blanket statement that might seem correct at first but technically is completely wrong when it comes to crypto and well implemented smart contracts. See "The Byzantine Generals Problem": https://decryptionary.com/dictionary/byzantine-generals-problem/#targetText=Byzantine%20Generals'%20Problem%20is%20defined,330%20AD%20to%201453%20AD https://decryptionary.com/dictionary/byzantine-generals-prob....
- friendlybus 7y agoThis model ignores the areas where you need trust and focuses instead on making an impenetrable black box for communications. That might be useful, but you can still be backstabbed by the other generals, or your soldiers or the programmer who put something fun in the implementation. Bitconnect, mtgox and every other imploded bitcoin service illustrates the point to the tune of billions.